All right, good evening.

I'd like to call the January 12th 2026 meeting to order.

Um I have Laurie Casey, Ben Thielen is on route.

Uh Cindy Purdue Dolan is excused.

Um Matt Stepin is present.

I am here, Dan Dennehy, Chad Silk, Cindy Shaw, and Mary McCormick.

If we could have our Pledge of Allegiance, please.

Do we have any public comment on any item on the agenda?

And we don't have any public comment on anything on the agenda within the jurisdiction of the study commission either, it looks like.

If we could move forward to approval of the minutes for the meeting held January 5th, 2026.

Ms.

McCormick?

Madam Chair, I would um like to make a motion to approve the minutes.

Is there a second?

Second.

So I have a motion by McCormick and a second by Shaw.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

So correspondence and our study commission update.

Any correspondence.

Okay.

Just from uh the chair, I wanted to make a clarification in our language.

Um Vice Chair Denehee has pointed out in our materials and as we're discussing these items as we're going forward, it's important that we have precise language.

And so the commission is not recommending a change of form of government.

We are staying as a charter form of government.

And we are also staying as a consolidated city-county form of government.

So we are not recommending any changes to that form.

Rather, the changes that we are recommending are structural change.

And so we're looking at structure change with city manager commission form, and we're looking at, or excuse me, city com city manager commission structure, and we're looking at the number of commissions in that structure.

So there is no form of government change.

There's rather a structural change.

And I'll defer to Mr.

Denehy if you'd like to add any comments to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I think you covered it.

Um I just didn't want uh I I get asked all the time, are you changing the form of government and we're not if we you know it's chartered form is a great form of government, it is forward-looking, it's it's more historical plus futuristic.

Um but um the structure of government what we're we're doing is very important.

So that's what we are recommending to the voters, the voters have the final say.

So the structure is as you said, um uh manager and uh city county manager and commission form of excuse me, commission structure change.

So yeah, so I just want to make c clear that we're not changing the form of government.

Because if you if you say form, then it becomes state it's uh in statute, state statute, and that's then you can't change it in the future.

So uh form is charter form, structure is what we're recommended.

Thank you, Mr.

Denehy, for bringing back that language.

I think it is v uh vital that we make sure we use that language going forward.

Ms.

Shaw.

Your microphone is on.

All right, so moving forward with our unfinished business.

Um it is you actually director versus coordinator position working group update.

If we can have the civic center analysis, please.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh so I I looked up my notes when we talked to Bill Melvin, who is the current manager of the city uh civic cent the Butte Civic Center, and then I went to uh the ordinances.

I was hoping to find possibly something in the ordinances before I called Bill.

And uh so his his note, he said that this is back in May.

Um he said that he was going to um hire an assistant manager and that he was retiring.

Well, he was gonna retire by December, but it's moved up to June.

And he has a success succession plan, excuse me, tongue tired.

Um to they're pretty sure that uh Crystal would possibly move up into that position.

It is appointed.

Um he said that he was they there was an it ordinance driving the Butte Civic Center, but it actually is just relates to their board.

They have an advisory board for the Civic Center.

That's the only mention in our ordinance.

So when I was trying to see which route to go with this, or even just to recommend, so they are they they are not driven by ordinance and they are not in the charter.

So neither one of those are in place at the time.

They do have an advisory board, and the uh they answer directly to the chief executive.

So there's a two ways to go here.

Um he wanted us to change a manager to director.

And there is a question about the difference between a department head and a director.

And sometimes in some cases, a director means there is going to be a bump in pay, but um I don't know that that was I don't think that's our purpose for having a director um change in a title, even with other things that we've been asked to do, like animal services and that.

Um I uh the the one choice we can make is add a section 7.10 would be uh because it's not in the charter yet, in order to change that uh title, it could be done by charter, and they're not in there anyway, so maybe we could add them in like we're doing possibly doing with the uh um well, we did it with super fun, but with parks and recs.

So um the other option is that we can ask the council of commissioners to make a change, although there's no ordinance in place for them to change it, and that's the little thing that I uh a little sticky wicket I'm having trouble with.

Um if there was something in place in ordinance, that would be easy peasy.

We just have the council of commissioners ask them, maybe in our list of recommendations to do that.

Oh there, hello Ben.

Um yeah, so that's that's kind of the wrap-up that I have here.

Um, Bill's concerns are that the department it is a department, it's big and they they're very involved in a lot in a lot of things with the county, and I think maybe a department head might be appropriate as as well as director.

So that's kind of where I'm at on it.

And I was thinking that we could discuss it as a group tonight, and then we we could have wait till next week to make the final quite a few things of moving parts here with other things with director manager issues or changes to the charter itself.

So um I would entertain some discussion from my fellow commissioners.

Thank you, Ms.

Shaw.

I appreciate your work on that.

So discussion.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, madam chair.

I I am probably in the minority on this, but I do believe that we are starting to micromanage.

Uh the charter sets up the framework, but when we start adding that we're going to have departments, we're taking away the ability of the council of commissioners to decide and determine whether they need departments or reorganizing departments or how they should be.

So I think we're starting to micromanage a little bit.

Um I understand uh Cindy that it's not in ordinance, but there's not very many departments that are in ordinance.

There's very few actually.

Uh the human resource departments in ordinance and a couple others, but like planning, community development, historic preservation.

A lot of those are not in ordinance.

There's ordinances of how they are to run, and their boards are in ordinances, and that's what I think is important here, is a lot of these park and rec, civic center, a lot of them are do have boards, and when you look at the purpose of their board, it is for the citizens to be engaged in that department to help supervise, manage, help make uh recommend decisions.

They can't make them, but they can recommend them to the council of commissioners.

And so I think in some respects we're taking that ability away if we start adding it in the charter.

That's just my feelings.

Thank you, Ms.

Casey.

I appreciate that perspective as well.

Wasn't offered and so it last time, so it's important to consider all of these angles.

Other comments or questions for Cindy regarding the Civic Center.

Mr.

Thielen, welcome.

Well, good evening.

Nice to see everybody.

Madam Chair.

Uh you know, I I kinda tend to agree with Lori just being here a few minutes late, but listening to that.

We don't want to be taking anything away from the council, whoever they may be when they get there.

Um I really hate micromanagers.

And so for that, I'm gonna go with her.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for those comments.

I I really went on the fence on this, and uh the fact that it's not in the charter, and I I know when I looked up Civic Center and it just came up with their board, I'm like, huh, I kind of remember that there's not a whole lot of micromanagement, even in the ordinances.

So and some of those departments have been around most of them for a long, long, long time.

Um then, you know, I'm thinking about animal services, I believe I missed last week's meeting, but I think we uh uh uh voted to change that to uh director, is that correct or not?

No.

Oh, you weren't here, Lori.

I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

We offered to change that that name um in our preliminary report.

And I I want to recall the um process too.

So if we push something into the preliminary report and calling something a director, doesn't mean that we are married to that decision, we can have more public comment and come back with our final report and what goes to ballot um in June.

Okay.

Follow up public thank you.

So and I no nobody, you know, no disrespect to anybody, but I do think that sometimes director gives that connotation that they're going to get a bump in pay going from a manager to a director.

So I I kind of like the title department head, a little more generic, but I don't know.

I'm and that's I was just throwing that out there also.

But I I'm totally deferred to my fellow commissioners.

It it was one of those things where I really couldn't say that I would go one way or the other at this moment.

So and we're not gonna make a final decision, I guess, until maybe you know we could do it today too, make a decision, take it to a vote.

I don't think we you and I have completed the analysis document for the commission to review, and I'd I'd prefer for that to be there before they make their final decision.

So if we can bring it back next week, right?

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

You know, I certainly agree with Lori on like when the it isn't mentioned in the charter, nothing's been said yet.

You know, why would we want to open that door and we can let somebody else open it?

Somebody more appropriate.

But what happens like with the reclamation when they say in the charter it says that they're a manager or they don't give it clear direction.

If we don't make that change now, can the council of commissioners change it when the charter says it's if the council you know says it's if the charter says it's a manager, can the council of commissioners on their own change it into a director.

I see Mr.

Enrith in the hall.

I'm assuming he's coming in, so if we can maybe um hold that and ask him that question, I would presume, and I'm not a lawyer, but I would presume that there's charter supremacy, and so we would it would probably defer to the charter.

However, we should defer to him.

Ms.

Casey.

I would agree with Cindy that uh folks when they say director or even department head, that uh it means maybe a bump in salary.

But I can tell you currently, and there always has been in my tenure, directors and department head and or department heads, all there they make different salaries.

There's just not one set salary for department heads or or directors.

To me, right now they're interchangeable to in the current form of that, and they all there are differences in their pay, so it doesn't necessarily mean you might get more duties, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're going up in pay.

Mr.

Enruth, excellent timing.

Um we had a question from Ms.

McCormick regarding titles in the charter.

It's Chair Woman Brandle, it's been a day.

No.

What can I do for the council?

Well, thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, we were discussing, you know, we have all these various departments that have managers or don't have clearly defined directors, and you know, kind of going through and deciding whether we um should address that in the charter or not.

And um Lori Casey was like, well, maybe we should leave this up to their boards and not get involved in this kind of stuff.

But that that's not the question, so keep that little brain going.

Um but I was you know, certainly I think that's true, like for the um civic center, and you know, maybe we don't have to, but if we have in the charter, like with the reclamation department, I can't remember what that what is if he's a manager, and we wanted to make that a director.

If it stays so we were saying that Lori was saying it could be done, and I agree with her by council.

If it's not in the ordinance, I think the council can make some changes.

But if it's in the um charter, excuse me, if it's in the charter that this person is a manager, can the council of commissioners change the position to director?

Or do we have to make that change?

Commissioner McCormick, I would equate this to the same thing that we're dealing with with the firefighters.

The charter is gonna hold water, where the council of commissioners does not have the authority to modify the charter with regards to Director Osborne's authority because there are other superseding state laws.

Um I think the same would hold true for for that as well, where the charter specifically states X that this person is a manager or this person is a you know of that specific department is a manager or a director.

There are, in my opinion, two ways to deal with that.

One, uh the obvious way to put label them what you would like to label them.

They are the director of said department, or that the council has the authority to appoint a director or a manager or whatever they want to do, however decided later on by ordinance.

Does that make sense?

A lot of these charters, and I'm based off a lot of my research, that that's why you have the broad charter rather than the tight-knit one, is because then you allow the ever-changing council of commissioners to uh have that authority to you know create and dispose of and to label uh correct appropriately where we've now you know had our charters been going on for so long.

This specific uh committee has been given a monumental task of changing a lot of things that we've now seen that the charter tends to supersede and that our local council can't deal with.

So that's why you guys have all of these great thoughts and questions and things that need to be changed.

So those are your options in my opinion.

Thank you, Mr.

Enruth.

It's probably the last of my brain power.

Other discussion from the committee, Ms.

McGormick.

Thank you, madam chair.

I mean, with that said, I think we should just stay away from things that aren't already mentioned in the charter, like the civic center.

It's not in the charter.

We should stay away from that, and then the council of commissioners has free reign to go and do what they want.

And if the people at that, they need to get their board together and go to the council and make those changes.

But if there's things that are in the charter, like reclamation and maybe animal services that we think need to go to be directors, I think we should consider that so um just for the good of the order and us remembering where we're at with things, we did vote in the affirmative to add the reclamation and environmental services department to charter.

Um we have kind of taken parks, we took a heartbeat with that one.

We wanted to look at language and consider it.

We have not voted on that, that would be available for us to consider.

We have not voted on civic center.

And then we did vote in the affirmative to change the name manager to director under animal services.

So that's where we're at with the department discussion.

Um and since we have Mr.

Enruthen, um, maybe he has one brain cell left.

Um there were some questions regarding um, you know, we don't have reclamation and environmental services called out as a department in the charter currently.

So if if it were voted against, what would the scenario there be?

We still have the ability to have a department, correct?

Because of what you just mentioned with the council of commissioners capacities.

Yes, because currently, under the current charter, the CEO has the authority to appoint there.

So it would just be the fallback.

Um so then if hypothetically speaking of a citizen of abuse of voted to go with the city manager, that language was changed in the proposal that the city manager would have that authority unless you know it's presented over here.

And those were all the things I was going to start discussing with everybody as soon as you guys got done voting on this is how what affects what, depending on how it's voted in.

Um but that's uh a conversation for another day.

But yes, it would be the fallback.

It would just go back to what we currently have in the charter, or again, you know, if we vote in a city manager, that the city manager would have the authority to appoint the position.

Which then again, it's just like a director goes in front of the council of commissioners and is voted on.

Okay.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um just hearing everybody's thoughts on this.

I'm not sure that I remember when Bill was here asking us to consider putting this in the charter, but rather asking us to look at the position title.

And so we may be getting out ahead of ourselves by considering putting something in the charter that really I don't believe anyone's asked us to do that.

And it could hamstring future administrations if there's changes, or if the civic center no longer exists, if the building goes away and we have it in the charter, it could create issues, but I don't I don't remember that being asked of us to consider adding it to the charter.

I think from our perspective, where this could potentially lie is in recommendations to the council to look at a number of positions and whether the duties being performed are managerial or director, and then letting them do their work.

Ms.

Shaw, did you have a comment?

Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that, Matt.

I I did look at the minutes, and they're well, I'm just saying back then they were a little different.

And um I he only basically mentioned that he would like to see the uh head when he left uh in June, that that person will be con with the title would be director.

And he when I talked to him on the phone recently, he said the same thing.

He didn't exactly say charter, but I think when we first thought about this at first at the first blush, what we wanted to do with that and animal services, that we kind of were talking about the charter primarily, but then there's always the option of letting the council of commissioners decide.

So I totally agree with that.

Other comments or questions.

Right.

So from the chair, I would also say that this one had me vacillating because to your point, Ms.

Casey, micromanaging in the charter is not appropriate for this commission.

And looking at our structure, again, we're setting up these departments as the bones of what is necessary to take care of the people of Butte Silver Bow.

And so when I'm thinking about, you know, what is necessary to take care of the people of Butte Silver Bow and making sure that their needs are met and that their you know tax dollars are going towards the services that they expect.

Uh I don't see that the Civic Center rises to that occasion.

However, I I can be convinced, so I wanted us to go through that process.

We will finish our analysis, bring it back to you.

I think we have a general feeling of consensus right now of letting our charter be more broad than rather narrow.

Um, with the exception of I, you know, I I know there's some disagreement with regards to that uh reclamation and environmental services.

The uh rationale from my point of view, and feel free to to push back on this, is that we have an in-perpetuity responsibility as a potentially responsible party under superfund from Butte Silver Bow.

So having that department declared and memorialized in charter, I think is important.

Um, and I can't also be convinced to not micromanage the council.

However, I would like to maybe insulate the department from continuous political change, if you know, in order to do their work effectively.

Um, we've had 30 years of superfund, and I think in the last reports we were talking about it.

We've been doing this for 10 years, and you know, now it's time it's like they expected to be over by now, and um my understanding is we're never going to be finished quite.

And in fact, in the remediation that's ongoing in the clerk fork right now, we have 30 more years expected.

So I think standing up that department is important.

That's my perspective.

I'm open to opinions about that, and of course, giving our council of commissioners the opportunity to create ordinance and work with that department as needed.

Um I think memorializing past superfunds, should we finally become not listed on the national priorities list, having an environmental services department is not a bad thing if we think future casting in 50 years, what other environmental services might be necessary in our county.

Um so those are thoughts from the chair.

Um if we could, let's circle back to the conversation about parks, because you all had asked us to go back and look at language and add sections that might change in us considering that section being added to the charter given our current conversation for tonight.

And I'll turn it over to Mr.

Chad Silk, who has done that work for us.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I'd like to do is go ahead and read the subsections that were requested to be added if we would like to move forward with this in the preliminary report under Section 7.09, which is a new section within the charter that pertains to parks and recreation department.

Last week there was some discussion about the reclamation environmental services department of adding or editing some of the subsections, and it was requested that some of those subsections be added to the parks and recs department for a more clear uh path within the charter.

And I I apologize, I thought I sent this out so everyone could see, but I did not, and I think that's okay.

I will make sure that I do that uh before we even leave this meeting, but I would like to go ahead and read uh what we have here and have some discussion on it.

So under section 7.09, which would create um a new section, subsection A reads there shall be a parks and rec direct parks and recreation department which shall be charged with the responsibility and administration of overseeing the management and direction of the community's parks and recreation services in Butte Silverbow, basically laying it out there what the parks department is to do.

Subsection B, the chief executive slash city county manager shall appoint with the consent of the Council of Commissioners a parks and recreation department director qualified by training and or experience.

And section C, the Council of Commissioners shall establish by ordinance the qualifications, training and or experience required, and additional responsibilities for the parks and recreation department.

And those are not copied and pasted, but very similar to not only this section under reclate recreate reclamation and emergency services department, but it's also consistent among the uh existing charter language of giving the council of commissioners the ability to create ordinance when hiring or other responsibilities within that department.

And with that, I'll hand it back over to the chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Silk.

And so discussion on this issue.

We were um last week we decided to hold it and bring it back this week to consider a vote of including it into our report or adding that section.

I'm okay with us opening the conversation first and then moving to motions and voting.

Um so we can we can do that.

Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, madam chair.

I'm not shy.

Um I I would I would uh echo my same concerns as the civic center.

Um I understand parks is listed under public works.

I would be okay to pull it out of the public works section of the charter, but adding it, I think it should be left to the council of commissioners and the chief executive or the city manager of how they want to create that department, what it looks like if they want to appoint somebody or if they actually want to go out and recruit and go through a hiring process for the director currently by ordinance under the park and record.

There is a park and rec director.

Uh and it allows the park and rec board under ordinance to offer qualifications and things that they would like to see included.

So again, I would just echo my same concerns is I th I think we're narrowing that scope based on uh the current park and rec director wanting it to be out.

I've in the analysis, I wasn't quite understanding that there wasn't a budget.

Uh it is under public works, but it is a they do have their own budget for parks for the golf course for the swimming pool.

So I wasn't quite understanding that reasoning of the budget to pull it out into its own department, and I'd be okay just taking it out of the charter under public works, but I think it should be left you know to the governing body of how they want to structure it.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Mr.

Silk, and then I'll take Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know, one of the reasons that I wanted to be um put my name into beyond this commission is to learn more about local government.

And I feel like every time I come to these meetings, I learn something.

Casey prior to this meeting there were some things that I think I should have realized and took for granted about things being in ordinance and then not in ordinance I I am in favor of and I think we all are of creating a somewhat vague charter that can be very specific through ordinance that is always just a consistent working document but protects certain departments within that charter and I can see it you know a dichotomy between not putting a department in and also putting and and leaving some out I I'm leaning more towards you know adding a reclamation environmental services department because of the way that it's named and the responsibilities that could change but then going back to Ms.

Casey's point I think it is I don't want to step on anyone's toes when there's been system in place for so long that I'm continuing to learn about and again going back to that micromanaging and so my I I don't have an anything more than just a comment of I I believe that I'm going to think about it a little bit harder any time a vote comes up on adding a full department compared to just changing the name of a director versus manager um and I that's my comment for that is just to again absorb everything in and and to not micromanage make the charter not so complicated vague and be able to run through ordinance so thank you.

Ms McCormick Well the reclamation whatever it is is in the charter and it is under the public works department and that's the way it is right now and if we don't do something it's going to stay that way because you can't change the charter and I really believe that the public works department I mean that the um park and rec should be a standalone department I think they have a hell of a lot of responsibility and from what we heard both from the director of public works and from the um parks director or parks whatever they are um they both thought that that would is they both supported the idea of a separate department and I don't think we're you know I don't want to do it with everything but I think there's a couple things we need to do it for and I think parks and recs is one of them and certainly reclamation is one of them and we're not taking authority away I mean we're given the authority to the people to vote on it.

That's how I see and then they can make the decision and it can go from there.

But otherwise it's just going to stay that way in the charter for another 10 years and I really would like to see an independent park and rec department thank you Mr.

Thielen and then I'll take you Ms.

Casey Madam Chair I just have a question for everybody.

Doesn't parks and rec work fine just where it's at I think it does.

I don't think we need to make it a standalone department it's working fine if it's not broke don't fix it.

He does a good job with what he's got and uh I really don't think it needs to be moved I think we have more pressing issues that need to be addressed other than moving parks and recognition Ms.

Casey?

Madam Chair I just wanted to clarify um to uh Miss McCormick's point I would be okay removing it from underneath but not specifically creating it a department so then the government itself the council of commissioners the chief executive or the city manager could do what they need with the depart with what they wanted.

So I just wanted to clarify that there is an option that we could just remove that the term park and rec where it is under the where it says it shall be under public works or something like the the wording in the charter where it's placing it under public works we could remove that we could I would be okay with removing that mine is putting it back in as a standalone department.

So I just wanted to clarify that so Ms.

Casey you you would be proposing an alternative where in section 7 point zero two under section A we would just strike parks and recreation there and the maintenance and operation of related equipment and then the charter would therefore be silent on a parks and rec department or parks and recreation altogether and rather we would defer that to the council of commissioners and ordinance that would be correct madam chair Ms.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I agree with Lori on that too.

And at least it's still a placeholder, I I call I guess you would call it.

Um are you taking it out altogether?

So it's just gone off the charter as far as the uh parks and recs, excuse me.

Madam Chair.

And then I have a follow-up.

Go ahead.

I would I would say either or we I mean we could leave it like uh Mr.

Thielen said that it's working, we don't need to fix it.

Or we could remove remove it.

So I was just clarifying when I said I didn't care.

I I would be in favor if we removed it out, but creating its own department by charter is where I um would rather not, in my opinion.

So I mean I I think it could go either way, but there my point was there is an option just to leave it out, and it is silent, just like many of the other departments are silent, and they're either created through ordinance or by the council of commissioners create the department.

Okay, Ms.

Shaw, you have the follow-up and then I'll defer to Mr.

Enruth, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll make this quick.

Um so I and I agree with that.

You take it out, it I mean it still exists, and they they probably have a I'm sure they have some sort of a ordinance that has something to do with parks and recs, maybe.

Okay.

A board.

Yeah.

And that board is very strong.

But there's a huge interface between parks and recs in reclamation.

Public works.

I mean, they do a ton of stuff for it, they do all the festivals.

There's a lot of interface with other departments, and I think it might be a little tricky to try to get all that put together in the charter.

And I I think about the uh superfund responsibilities that that department is gonna have someday soon.

I think it's in five years that we inherit all the reclamation and the changes that are being made out there as far as maintenance.

Now we'll get paid for it by ARCO, but it's gonna take bodies to do that.

And I I I can just see parks and rec's responsibilities really growing in the next few years.

So this might be a little premature to try to codify that in the charter.

That's all.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Mr.

Enruth.

Uh Chairman Bruno Commission, the other thing with this one is is it is already a functioning department.

If we remove it from the charter, then you have a department that essentially no longer exists until council puts it back into place, and who knows how long that will take.

Just a thought.

It just popped into my brain.

It's one of those ones that's it's a little different than like the coroner.

Uh by law, the coroner is going to go to the sheriff's department where they are gonna have the capability of doing those things.

If parks and rec was completely removed from the charter, uh uh my thought process is is what is there gonna be an in-term issue, or can we roll it over?

Is this the council gonna have time to do that?

It was just a thought that popped into my head that's something we might want to think about.

Okay, Ms.

McCormick.

Well, just to respond to that quickly, as Lori said, there's a lot of departments that are not in the charter.

I don't think parks and rec will necessarily go away if we take it out of the charter, it will just allow another process to make it an official department.

But as I remember in when um Sean Frederikson spoke before us, the current park and recs director, he really strongly was advocating for a separate department that he could operate better, and I think um what Ms.

Shaw just said about the growing, it's a growing department and it's a growing need.

It's not so I think both Mr.

Frederickson and Mr.

Neary were very strong in their opinions that it needed to be a separate department.

Other comments?

Okay.

So coming from the chair, uh thinking about this again in structure.

If we look at this from the public's point of view, as was stated in the master plan and the um public comment that we received in the master plan, and then our own public comment within our our system, our um outreach, parks and recreation are important to our citizenry and are considered part of the value adding services that Butts of Rebo provides.

And specifically called out by our public comment was our trail system and our access to the beautiful outdoors that is immediately nearby.

Um that said, I'm not sure in terms of again thinking 50 years down the road, you know, what does that department look like and what is their their uh call to action and how do we fund it and how do we make sure we keep it um viable in the long-term future?

So that's you know, not necessarily our purview in terms of the viability, but does that structure need to exist to meet the needs of our citizenry?

Mr.

Denehy, you have a comment.

Yes, madam chair.

Can I have Chad read his comments again, please?

Or his uh amendment?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, uh Mr.

Denhi.

It would be the addition of section 7.09, subsection A.

There shall be a parks and recreation department which shall be charged with the responsibility in administration of overseeing the management and the direction of the community's parks and recreation services in Butte Silverbo.

Subsection subsection B reads the chief executive or city county manager shall appoint with the consent of the Council of Commissioners a parks and recreation department director qualified by training and or experience in subsection C, the Council of Commissioners shall establish by ordinance the qualifications, training and or experience required, and additional responsibilities for the parks and recreation department.

Madam Chair, what was 7.08?

Do you remember what that was?

Madam Chair, Mr.

Denny, the 7.08 was the addition of the reclamation and environmental services department, I believe.

Thank you.

If there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion to add 7.09 to our preliminary report for consideration going to the ballot as proposed by Mr.

Silk.

Ms.

McCormick.

Madam Chair, I so move that we add section 7.09 to our proposed preliminary report.

Is there a second?

Second.

I think Ms.

Shaw was uh faster than you, Mr.

Denehy.

So I have a motion by McCormick and a second by Shaw.

Can all those who are in favor of adding 7.09 signify by saying aye.

Okay.

So I have ayes from McCormick, Shaw, Denehy, Chad Silk, and Stepin.

And those who are opposed, please signify by nay.

Nay.

I have a nay from Casey and Thielen.

Madam Chair, I apologize.

I I was not voting, I was actually You were raising for a comment.

I apologize.

That's okay.

I uh I'm used to the you know, after a motion in a second, but I understand we lots of discussion before we don't uh I should I'm struggling with the idea that this of the problem we're trying to solve and the implications of making the decision.

And I feel like this is a great topic for gathering more input and public comment and conversation.

And I'm wondering if that happens more if it's in our preliminary report and then hearing the feedback than if it's not.

And so I uh if you're asking for my vote, I would probably I would vote in favor, and that's that would be my reason.

I feel like I need to um back up and re-vote.

So we I did not follow proper procedure, my apologies.

So um if is there any other comment before I call for the revote?

Okay.

Mr.

Denahy.

Madam Chair, um, just a comment on Matt's comment.

Um I think by including it in the preliminary language that will be going out for public comment, I think we would have a more thorough discussion of that recommendation if it's in the preliminary report than if it's not.

So uh that's just my comment back to Matt's question.

All right, excellent.

Thank you, folks.

Can I call for a revote, please?

All of those who are in favor of adding section 7.09 signify by saying aye.

Aye.

I have eyes from McCormick, Shaw, Chad Silk.

Jennahy step in.

All those who are opposed, please signify by nay.

I have Casey and Thielen on nay.

Thank you, folks.

It does carry, and I will vote as um in the affirmative.

Thank you.

Um so the motion does carry, and we'll move it to the preliminary report.

And folks, thank you for that.

I appreciate uh the deliberation and good thoughtful questions there.

Okay, moving on to our coroner working group update.

Do we have an update from the coroner working group?

Okay.

So yes, I realize that uh Cindy is gone tonight.

I wasn't sure if other members had anything to add.

Mr.

Thielen.

Madam Chair, to my knowledge, uh Mr.

Parrish has not gotten back to uh Ms.

Purdue Dolan on the emails and such that he was supposed to get to her.

So Ms.

Casey.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just have a question and maybe the county attorney can answer it.

It's when the co uh coroner is elected, or probably the sheriff for that matter, um, when they go through that certification that they're required to.

If you're an elected in that elected position, who verifies that you actually completed or and if you don't, what happens, I guess.

Uh Madam Chair, Commissioner Casey.

So the requirement to complete it is is by state statute.

I do believe that they are required to then submit that to the county.

I would believe the Kirk and Clerk and Recorder's office because it's part of being uh an elected official as part of the requirements.

Um so it would be my thought that that's who it should be reported to.

And then if it's it can happen after the election, Commissioner Thielen.

They have a certain time frame that allows them to do it because that school is only a couple times a year.

All right.

How about our fire department's working group update?

Thank you, madam chair.

Um our group met with uh or or at some point or another, each member of our group was able to make part of uh a lunch with um Chief Osborne just this last Saturday?

Friday?

Friday.

Um had a great conversation with Chief Osborne.

We have scheduled for this Wednesday a similar meeting with chiefs from the volunteer departments or Jason Willoughby specifically.

Um I'm not sure the others in attendance, and we're also scheduling a meeting with union leadership that will hopefully happen this week as well.

So uh as I mentioned last meeting, we're uh we've got a foundation that we're working from of objectives that we're gathering the input from these parties now to either solidify or change direction or um add to or take from.

And we're excited to report back to this group once these meetings this week have taken place.

Thank you very much.

Is there any questions for those working groups from the rest of the commission?

Okay.

All right, moving on to new business.

We don't have any new business.

Um we do not have a public meeting.

Under other scheduled matters, we are scheduled to be on the 20th rather than the 19th.

Given that we have moved through all of the director pieces, it looks like coroner is held up, and then I know fire departments.

You gracefully requested to bring that forward on the 26th.

I'm wondering if there is need for a meeting on the 20th, or we better be better served to do our work with our committees that are getting their work done, the fire committee, for example, and the coroner, and then perhaps the group that's working on reporting.

Um getting our report done might be a better service than sitting in the chair and entertain conversation about that.

Ms.

McCormick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I'm fine with that.

I just we gotta we just the working groups have to be committed to making their recommend presentation and recommendations at that last meeting and on that 26th.

It it just that's a drop dead due date.

And otherwise, I think it would be great for us to do away with the October, I mean the January 20, 21st meeting.

Um absolutely, and I realize we're under pressure of time here, and I know getting that information in and having a good solid uh feel for what we'd like to recommend or what might be useful is important.

So I want to give the working group time to do that, and maybe the 20th is better used to do that work.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I I remember that uh Commissioner uh Dolinch, it was her request to try to make another date again to meet as often as possible.

But I think uh being on the fire services uh subcommittee, it's really imperative that we get our other things done like interviewing and things like that.

Um but I I just made a tentative date with Barb, and she I'm sure she'd be happy to take us off the calendar for the twentieth.

So if we decide to do that, that's perfectly fine with me, other comments or questions or concerns.

I know that personally I could definitely use some more time in front of the computer and not on the road right now to to get that report drafted out and ready for your review as soon as the the other working groups um get their information to us and we can get it dropped in.

Because we we need to get that turned out, start our public outreach, and then go towards that public hearing date in March.

So we're we're short on time, long on study, I think.

So all right.

All right, if there is no other um scheduled matters or anything to consider there, I will cancel the twentieth.

Uh we'll please note that Shanna on our website or have that noted.

And then um therefore we won't have a meeting on the twentieth.

Our next meeting will be held on January twenty sixth.

Um and with that Madam Chair, I make a motion, let's go home.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

And a second from Shaw.

All in favor?

Thank you.

Thanks everybody.

We'll see you in two weeks.